Originally Posted by
22/04
Can I ask a "threat and error management" question
Why are heavies being obliged to use runway 22 at an airport where five longer runways are available.
Seems to be an unnecessary threat.
Would EHAM have permitted rejection of that runway.as I heard a BA 787 do at New Orleans the other day ( reject 20 in favour of 11).
In this case the wind was (south)westerly at a rather decent speed.
That gives you 4 runways to land on, 22/27/18C/18R (24,18L are not used for approach or landing, with 24 sometimes available for a break-off from 22/27)
The 18C was closed due maintenance and the 18R was deemed to have too much Xwind.
Leaves 22 and 27, but at the time, SPL had an outbound peak, requiring 2 runways to start from.
As 22 is a terrible runway to depart from (logistic wise for aircraft not based on the east part of SPL), 27 was used besides 24.
As 22 is a perfectly fine runway, there was and is no reason to change that. However, if a pilot requires the 27, ATC will give it but with (substantial) delay. The same, or worse for an eventual break-off to 24. Those "extra" landings would screw up the departure flow quite a lot.
Again, it might be the shortest runway and maybe short compared to what most are used to, but by no means a runway which is special, dangerous or to be avoided. Especially an a330, which stops on a dime, should have no more issues than a embraer or b737 (which probably requires more runway).